Kerala High Court
Mohandas vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank, P.B ... on 20 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12420 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MOHANDAS
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, PATHALINGAL HOUSE, KULUKKALLOOR,
MULAYANKAVU P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679337.
BY ADVS.
AMJATHA D.A.
FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.B NO.25
REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, H.P.O ROAD,
SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOPPAM BRANCH,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679307.
BY ADV M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12420 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
the following reliefs:-
(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading up
to quash Exhibit P1 and all proceedings pursuant
thereto.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the respondent to regularize
the loan account by giving installments for the overdue
amount.
2. The petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of the
borrower who had availed an Overdraft facility from the Bank.
When the petitioner failed to make payments, coercive
proceedings have been initiated invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner
approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents to
regularise the loan account.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission on
25.03.2024, this Court passed an interim order staying further
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 till 20.05.2024 on condition that
the petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.15 lakhs on or before
30.03.2024 and a further amount of Rs.15 lakhs on or before
30.04.2024. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not
paid any amount pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. In
this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 sale notice.
Ext.P1 sale notice is issued invoking Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act.
4. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the
proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon'ble
Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained
against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the
instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an
efficacious alternate remedy.
5. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank
of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the
Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie
against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of
the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
6. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined
to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation
Act.
7. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew
Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that when the
legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate
redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary
circumstances.
8. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and
others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ
petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation
Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an
effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate
the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of
law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ
petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
Sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12420/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
13.02.2024.
